Caporegime
It's not a trick Michael, it's an illusion.
Why bump a nearly 2 year old threadBumpatron!
Saw this on my lunch time walk today, which amused me
Finally, a man with common sense who doesn't channel thoughts through his shaft.
At least. As for getting married at this stage i would say forget it. Wait till you are in your 60s.
I've often wondered why any assets prior to a relationship are even up for grabs after a separation. If the relationship impacts those assets in any way, then sure, they should be considered. But if my girlfriend owned a house and I moved in, we got married and then it didn't work out a few years later, I wouldn't be looking to receive any portion of the house.
Because it's your home now too, regardless of financial input. If you lived in it for 2 years and supported your wife and kids in any way, even without paying mortgage or bills, theres a "reasonable assumption" that its your home.
I completely agree that it would be our home. But it would still be her house. Even if there was a mortgage being paid, if she was financially independent and capable of paying all bills, I'd still not expect a portion of that property. If I was contributing to the mortgage or to the bills in a manner that it was required so she could pay the mortgage then it would be different. Otherwise I'd see myself as simply paying for my usage of water, electricity, food etc.Because it's your home now too
You guys are fixing on finances, which is fair because they're important, but the court doesn't care. It's not about who pays for what, it's about 2 people living together.
The fact is that if Tracy owned a house 100% outright that was left from her Granny, and then you moved in a got married and spent 2 years there and nowhere else, and receieved any correspondance there and registered your car there and all the other little things that you do with your home, then Tracy HAS ACCEPTED that you now call that house "home". If she wanted to keep it all to herself, then she should have maintained a better seperation. Pre-nups can help towards that, but will not exclusively award you 100% of your stuff back like they do in the US.
I'm not saying I agree, just laying it how it is.
Edit: It's about what can be argued. That's why "reasonable assumption" is a legal term. If you only lived in Tracy's house 1 day a week and your mum got your mail, then you're unlikely to get anything out of it. But if she allows you to call ti home and invite friends round and do DIY and all your stuff is there then that's a home. She is within her rights to charge you 50% of the value of the house but she probably wont; because who would?!
Hi all,
Getting married in June, looking at prenups as I have quite a bit of property that I want to keep if things go wrong.
Been together for 15 years, 2 kids, so I suppose I'm pretty *** swearing should be fully starred out, especially that word *** already but want to know if anyone here created pre-nups, or how I can put measures in to reducing the financial raping I will no doubt get.
SBK